D&D 5E What if Expertise were a simple +2?

[The Crimson Binome]

I admit, I do find that a bit surprising. Sure, the narrative doesn't change if we were reading the book or watching the movie, but we are playing a game. It may take more skill to build a character, but if I don't get to use their special abilities they were built with... what's the point?

But you are using your special abilities. You chose the ability "automatically bypass most traps and locks", which you use every time the DM compares your minimum check result to the DC and determines that no roll is necessary. It's like choosing to speak Giant, which lets you automatically understand ogres when they talk to each other. You should feel good that the ability you chose allows you to succeed, regardless of whether the DM makes you roll for it first.

Let's take that expertise out for a moment. Your minimum is now 19, you still will breeze through the majority of locks and traps in the world. So... why invest in it? Why care about expertise?

That is a much bigger issue, I will admit. At the high end, expertise lets you do crazy things under any reasonable interpretation of Bounded Accuracy, but reliable talent lets you stomp all over the world without even investing in anything. Every rogue is automatically proficient in Thieves Tools, and most rogues will have Dex 20 before they hit level 11, which means they can beat almost any lock without even trying. (The only real point of taking expertise in Thieves Tools, if the DM isn't specifically contriving challenges to match you, is to increase your chance of success at low levels; by the time you get to level 11, and you're guaranteed success, it's too late to change your focus.)

Personally, I see that as a failing of Bounded Accuracy, and an indication that deeper changes are needed for the skill system. A simpler solution would involve changing reliable talent. In either case, though, it's beyond the scope of this thread.

If you can't fail, what's the point of even having the obstacle exist in the first place?

At least in theory, the reason to put a DC 23 lock into a level 11 dungeon is to reward the thief for investing expertise into Thieves Tools; and the reason to put a DC 19 lock into a level 11 dungeon is to reward the party for having the foresight to bring a thief along with them in the first place. Alternatively, those locks are there to keep out lower-level adventurers, against whom they might actually do something (although that may not actually be true, due to Bounded Accuracy).

In any case, looking for locks to challenge an expert burglar is like looking for trolls to challenge a fire wizard. It's okay if they trivialize this one thing, because there are plenty of other challenges that they aren't specialized against.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Those are some weak tea high-level obstacles if you ask me.

It's not that you need a 38 on your lock-picking roll. It's that you need the King of Shadows' lockpicking tools to even make the attempt. How did you get those? And the only reason you can make the attempt in the first place is because you trick the Nefarious Hell Beast that guards the door. How did you do that? And what are you going to do when the door opens and the Blistering Hell Wind sears you down to your soul?

You're dealing with gods and curses and monsters here. DCs are sooo low-level.

Fair point.

But now we are talking design of an adventure. Sure, it isn't just that easy, but what if my high level plot involves the players finally taking down the Empire of Olkar which has been a thorn in their sides for the entire game, because they are about to gain control of the Armies of Selthoon sealed in the Palace of the Runed King. Are the locks in the palace on the material plane going to require special lockpicks and a DC 30 check? If they do then what does an inter-planar lock even look like if it is to be even more secure?

Combat, I can make combat work at any level, and with magic and artifacts I can keep 20th level exciting on the material plane. But, when the players are so skilled that I begin to not feel the point in even including the skill challenges they are most skilled in, because they must either be artificially inflated or trivial, then I think it is fair to wonder if that indicates a less than ideal system.

But you are using your special abilities. You chose the ability "automatically bypass most traps and locks", which you use every time the DM compares your minimum check result to the DC and determines that no roll is necessary. It's like choosing to speak Giant, which lets you automatically understand ogres when they talk to each other. You should feel good that the ability you chose allows you to succeed, regardless of whether the DM makes you roll for it first.

I see what you are saying, but the ability "I automatically succeed" is... a really boring ability. Speaking another language auto-succeeds in speaking that language, but it opens further avenues, additional plots, and gives you the opportunity to be proactive.

Automatically finding and disarming traps... doesn't really. Unless I create an arbitrary barrier which you can now cross, then you haven't opened up chances or plots. You've just found and disarmed traps. And after a point, I stop putting traps in the game, because they are nothing but a waste of time. You will find them, you will disarm them, even if they exist they are no more interesting than saying the wall is green.

And now we have a character who invested heavily in traps, who had great experiences with traps at low levels, in a world with no traps because they serve no purpose any more.

Social checks are a bit weirder, succeeding really well on those can still have complications because people are complicated, but I could still see a game where I stop bothering to ask the character to roll persuasion or deception. They are going to succeed anyways, so I just have the character react to the success... and at a certain point wouldn't that just get boring?

That is a much bigger issue, I will admit. At the high end, expertise lets you do crazy things under any reasonable interpretation of Bounded Accuracy, but reliable talent lets you stomp all over the world without even investing in anything. Every rogue is automatically proficient in Thieves Tools, and most rogues will have Dex 20 before they hit level 11, which means they can beat almost any lock without even trying. (The only real point of taking expertise in Thieves Tools, if the DM isn't specifically contriving challenges to match you, is to increase your chance of success at low levels; by the time you get to level 11, and you're guaranteed success, it's too late to change your focus.)

Personally, I see that as a failing of Bounded Accuracy, and an indication that deeper changes are needed for the skill system. A simpler solution would involve changing reliable talent. In either case, though, it's beyond the scope of this thread.

A fair point, but I think expertise and Reliable talent hit into the same area. Reliable talent just removes time as a factor, because the rules do still allow you to "take 10" in a lot of circumstances.

Expertise is what allows reliable talent and taking 10 to create these monstrous scores which simply can't be beat. But even without them, 1's aren't auto fails, so a minimum result of 14 or 18 instead of 23 or 27. And if you only have a 5% or 10% chance of failing is there a point in making the roll?

At least in theory, the reason to put a DC 23 lock into a level 11 dungeon is to reward the thief for investing expertise into Thieves Tools; and the reason to put a DC 19 lock into a level 11 dungeon is to reward the party for having the foresight to bring a thief along with them in the first place. Alternatively, those locks are there to keep out lower-level adventurers, against whom they might actually do something (although that may not actually be true, due to Bounded Accuracy).

In any case, looking for locks to challenge an expert burglar is like looking for trolls to challenge a fire wizard. It's okay if they trivialize this one thing, because there are plenty of other challenges that they aren't specialized against.

Yes there are other things they aren't as good at.

But while a Fire Wizard feels like a Fire Wizard by just casting Fire Spells in combat, no trolls required, does a master burglar feel like a master burglar if there are no things to burgle?

The fire wizard still is true to his concept if you are blasting trolls, golems, or even Demons with resistance. But, if an important aspect of the character is lockpicking, that aspect isn't being used when there are no locks to pick. And by mid levels, if you have a Bard and a Rogue who coordinate and are able to take something like the prodigy feat, you have 10 skills with expertise, and a floating skill with the Skill Empowerment spell.

There a 18 skills in the game. By that metric alone, the party can be specialized for over half the things in the game. And while I can have the fire wizard fight things with fire immunity to spice things up and make them consider new tactics (or simply give someone else a chance to shine) there is no equivalent to that in skills. A skill either applies to a situation or it doesn't, so I can either include it or I don't. It becomes very binary which makes it very hard to change it up.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I see what you are saying, but the ability "I automatically succeed" is... a really boring ability.

Is the ability "I have an 80% chance to succeed, and my only interaction is to roll one die" a much more exciting ability? I guess there's a chance of failure, so that's something, but it doesn't change your level of engagement any. There's no choice or decision involved, either way.

At that point, you're getting to the conceptual limitations of a binary-success skill system. You could try to overhaul the skill system, introducing something like skill challenges, but that also seems like it's beyond the scope of this thread.

But while a Fire Wizard feels like a Fire Wizard by just casting Fire Spells in combat, no trolls required, does a master burglar feel like a master burglar if there are no things to burgle?

You really shouldn't be shirking your duties, by skipping out on describing the locks and traps, just because the thief auto-succeeds past them. You can't blame the game for the way you DM. The real question should be, does a master burglar still feel like a master burglar if you just describe them masterfully burgling their way through an entire dungeon, without rolling any dice for it? Personally, I would say yes, the master burglar who breezes past every trap feels a lot more like a master burglar than the one who occasionally fails.

There a 18 skills in the game. By that metric alone, the party can be specialized for over half the things in the game. And while I can have the fire wizard fight things with fire immunity to spice things up and make them consider new tactics (or simply give someone else a chance to shine) there is no equivalent to that in skills.

Great, so they have half of the skills in the game covered. They no longer need to doubt the outcome of traps, social encounters, or obscure trivia contests. You can still challenge everyone with monsters that are immune to fire, though.

I know that 5E is a lot better than 3E in letting rogues stay useful to high levels, but teleport still exists, and it still completely obviates the need for overland travel. That's just the nature of the game, that high-level characters can ignore a lot of low-level challenges.

 

[Leatherhead]

Everyone is thinking of Rogue VS Wizard.
Nobody is thinking of Rogue VS Fighter.

Poor, poor Fighter. Sorry you can't be useful out of combat because the Rogue selfishly stole it for themselves and doesn't see the problem with it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Stupid computer crashing and erasing replies

Is the ability "I have an 80% chance to succeed, and my only interaction is to roll one die" a much more exciting ability? I guess there's a chance of failure, so that's something, but it doesn't change your level of engagement any. There's no choice or decision involved, either way.

At that point, you're getting to the conceptual limitations of a binary-success skill system. You could try to overhaul the skill system, introducing something like skill challenges, but that also seems like it's beyond the scope of this thread.You really shouldn't be shirking your duties, by skipping out on describing the locks and traps, just because the thief auto-succeeds past them. You can't blame the game for the way you DM. The real question should be, does a master burglar still feel like a master burglar if you just describe them masterfully burgling their way through an entire dungeon, without rolling any dice for it? Personally, I would say yes, the master burglar who breezes past every trap feels a lot more like a master burglar than the one who occasionally fails.

Great, so they have half of the skills in the game covered. They no longer need to doubt the outcome of traps, social encounters, or obscure trivia contests. You can still challenge everyone with monsters that are immune to fire, though.

I know that 5E is a lot better than 3E in letting rogues stay useful to high levels, but teleport still exists, and it still completely obviates the need for overland travel. That's just the nature of the game, that high-level characters can ignore a lot of low-level challenges.

I apologize for being lazy, but I'm not going to rewrite everything my computer erased since it is getting late down here.

1) I agree 80% doesn't feel much different, there is a sweet spot between 60% and 70% I think where skills are most fun for all involved. I have tried to introduce skill challenges with mixed results (recently had an excellent one where the players worked together to help cure an insane soldier of his madness, everyone got into it. Also recently had a travelling skill challenge that flopped hard, cause no one cared)

2) If I have a party which heavily invests in out of combat skills and abilities, I don't think the proper answer to challenge them is to have more combat. I should be able to challenge them out of combat. However, with how quickly expertise and skill boosting tactics can rise I find that if I tried to keep pace I would quickly ruin suspension of disbelief. But, if I do not try and keep some level of challenge then my group begins to get bored of always succeeding.

3) High level characters ignore low level challenges, but as we've discussed with these numbers they also trivialize high level challenges. Highest DC on a rules item I can find is the Sphere of Annihilation at DC 25. Highest listed DC in the game is 30. Players can boost to the point where 35 is not difficult for them to achieve and 40 is possible. What exactly are we supposed to put in front of players who can achieve that sort of outside the system result?

4) Teleport is incredibly risky unless you are going someplace you have gone before. Having a 40% chance of damage and re-rolls which could potentially lead to a TPK is really bad. You are far better off getting mounts and traveling anyways unless things are bad enough to risk the teleport anyways.

Everyone is thinking of Rogue VS Wizard.
Nobody is thinking of Rogue VS Fighter.

Poor, poor Fighter. Sorry you can't be useful out of combat because the Rogue selfishly stole it for themselves and doesn't see the problem with it.

Yeah, brought up the wizard because we were talking fire spells, but this is another aspect of the problem.

Players metagame, especially when they are trying to coordinate and work as a team to solve a problem you've presented to the group. They'll go around and ask who is good at a skill before trying to utilize it in a dungeon.

Now, sometimes I don't let them. Person with the best persuasion skill isn't the one who tried to convince the Duchess to support their cause, so they don't get to roll instead of the person who brought it up. They can take the help action though.

But, whenever someone takes expertise, well, not only do they eventually just auto-succeed, but other players will stop attempting to do that thing. It can create imbalances in the party that disincentivize people from trying things, because they know this other character will do it so much better than they will.

 

[5ekyu]

Is the ability "I have an 80% chance to succeed, and my only interaction is to roll one die" a much more exciting ability? I guess there's a chance of failure, so that's something, but it doesn't change your level of engagement any. There's no choice or decision involved, either way.

At that point, you're getting to the conceptual limitations of a binary-success skill system. You could try to overhaul the skill system, introducing something like skill challenges, but that also seems like it's beyond the scope of this thread.You really shouldn't be shirking your duties, by skipping out on describing the locks and traps, just because the thief auto-succeeds past them. You can't blame the game for the way you DM. The real question should be, does a master burglar still feel like a master burglar if you just describe them masterfully burgling their way through an entire dungeon, without rolling any dice for it? Personally, I would say yes, the master burglar who breezes past every trap feels a lot more like a master burglar than the one who occasionally fails.
Great, so they have half of the skills in the game covered. They no longer need to doubt the outcome of traps, social encounters, or obscure trivia contests. You can still challenge everyone with monsters that are immune to fire, though.

I know that 5E is a lot better than 3E in letting rogues stay useful to high levels, but teleport still exists, and it still completely obviates the need for overland travel. That's just the nature of the game, that high-level characters can ignore a lot of low-level challenges.

Just to be clear -

"At that point, you're getting to the conceptual limitations of a binary-success skill system. You could try to overhaul the skill system, introducing something like skill challenges, but that also seems like it's beyond the scope of this thread"

technically, for skills or ability checks in 5e it is not binary at all -

there are three outcomes at least - four in contests tho that might just be a different three.

for a basic task and ability check -
meet/beat the dc for success
less than dc for failure to make progress.
less than dc for make some progress with setback set by gm

So that is three options with a lot of variety for the third.

For contests its also trinary with the third option being tie leaving the situation as it was, which may mean in doubt which also opens up a big can of wormy possibilities as another serioes of actions by others gets into the mix.

So, you see, the difference between an auto-result and an uncertain result is a lot more than the same boring stuff or a binary pair of options.

this should not be taken as a criticism of the reliable talent feature by me.

However, if a Gm wanted to alter reliable talent to add some drama back in, i would suggest a consideration of the following type of alternative:

Reliable Complications (Replacement for Reliable talent): For the same skills/checks/tools as indicated with reliable talent, the player can choose (after the roll and knowledge of success/fail is given) to make a failed check into a success with setback determined by the gm.

this adds a little bit more umph - its not a flat 10 but a success - but always comes with setback when the initial roll fails and still keeps the drama aspects fully in play. it is actually just giving the choice between "no progress" and "some progress with setback" from the GM to the player, so its not even adding anything - just shifting who makes the choice.

Obviously, an impossible task gets no check anyway so this cannot let you jump to the moon etc.

Thats the kind of possibility that you can get to when you realize its not just binary by the basic PHB. maybe some like it, maybe others don't.

 

[5ekyu]

Everyone is thinking of Rogue VS Wizard.
Nobody is thinking of Rogue VS Fighter.

Poor, poor Fighter. Sorry you can't be useful out of combat because the Rogue selfishly stole it for themselves and doesn't see the problem with it.

the last fighter i built started with like six skill proficiencies, was good at survival and perception and was by no means useless out of combat.

also the fighter is not limited to taking his ASI/feat options on "bigger mo' fighter stuff" and that means they can make great headway for emphasizing certain skills or traits if they choose too.

 

[cmad1977]

the last fighter i built started with like six skill proficiencies, was good at survival and perception and was by no means useless out of combat.

also the fighter is not limited to taking his ASI/feat options on "bigger mo' fighter stuff" and that means they can make great headway for emphasizing certain skills or traits if they choose too.

Yup. Anyone who makes a fighter that can’t contribute to the other pillars of gameplay are either
A: making a conscious choice(good for them)
B: doing it wrong

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yup. Anyone who makes a fighter that can’t contribute to the other pillars of gameplay are either
A: making a conscious choice(good for them)
B: doing it wrong

But there is a difference between a fighter with proficiency and a Rogue or Bard with expertise, Jack of All Trades or Reliable talent. A big difference.

And they also don't have spells, so when the discussion turns to "Being able to get a +15 on a skill can't break the game because spells can rewrite reality" you have to wonder where that leaves fighter and barbarians whose max possible bonus is +11 (and generally that is athletics since they are str builds) and have no spells.

 

[cmad1977]

But there is a difference between a fighter with proficiency and a Rogue or Bard with expertise, Jack of All Trades or Reliable talent. A big difference.

And they also don't have spells, so when the discussion turns to "Being able to get a +15 on a skill can't break the game because spells can rewrite reality" you have to wonder where that leaves fighter and barbarians whose max possible bonus is +11 (and generally that is athletics since they are str builds) and have no spells.

...11 to a skill is sufficient to contribute most times.... given that most DCs are 15-20.

Yeah. Non-issue.
And any DM who can’t handle their players succeeding at the thing they’ve been building towards THE ENTIRE TIME THEY’VE BEEN PLAYING THAT CHARACTER... well...
Not a system issue. As usual.